Park v. TD Ameritrade Trust Company Inc. et al

Filing 103

ORDER. Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Reconsideration and/or Alternative Relief from Order/Judgment is denied. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 10/27/11.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02599-PAB-KMT
LORI L. PARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
TD AMERITRADE TRUST COMPANY, INC.,
TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION,
THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK,
JOSEPH H. MOGLIA,
J. THOMAS BRADLEY, JR.,
TD AMERITRADE SERVICES COMPANY, INC., and
TD AMERITRADE, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the “Motion for Reconsideration and/or
Alternative Relief from Order/Judgment” [Docket No. 29] which plaintiff filed on March
28, 2011. In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court construes her filings liberally.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
The Court construes plaintiff’s motion as seeking consolidation of this case with
Civil Action No. 10-cv-03136-ZLW. On March 17, 2011, Judge Zita L. Weinshienk
dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in that case on the grounds that it was largely duplicative
of the present matter. See Docket No. 27. Plaintiff filed a motion in No. 10-cv-03136ZLW nearly identical to the present motion in which she requested that the Court set

aside the judgment dismissing that case and consolidate the case with this matter. See
Docket No. 13 in No. 10-cv-03136-ZLW. Judge Zita L. Weinshienk denied that motion
on March 30, 2011. See Docket No. 30. Therefore, there is no active case with which
to consolidate the present matter. Furthermore, to the extent plaintiff seeks leave to
add allegations from her complaint in Civil Action No. 10-cv-03136-ZLW to her
pleadings in this case, her request is now moot. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend her complaint [Docket No. 43], which the magistrate judge granted on May 10,
2011. See Docket No. 50.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration and/or Alternative Relief
from Order/Judgment” [Docket No. 29] is DENIED.

DATED October 27, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

2